Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The hyphenation or non-hyphenation of compound modifiers is a frequent topic among copy editors, and I discuss it as eagerly as anybody. What we sometimes lose sight of, though, is whether the compound modifier really needs to be a compound modifier.

There's nothing particularly confusing in those constructions (though I would ask why we're calling the homicide charges negligent), but aren't they ugly? A hyphen would eliminate the inappropriate allegation of negligence, and I'd also hyphenate global-warming policy, but whaling-commission meeting, ocean-science-and-fisheries professor and especially northwestern-Louisiana youth shelter would look pretty weird even to a dedicated hyphenator like me.

But why not dedicate a few crumbs of paper and drops of ink to writing prose and not lines from a telegram? Why not his policy on global warming and the professor of ocean science and fisheries and next month's meeting of the whaling commission and a youth shelter in northwestern Louisiana? Keep the telegram method in your back pocket when a draconian trim is needed, but don't make it a first resort.

British English might use hyphens in things like "youth shelter" and "dressing gown"; in American English you see modifiers linked to nouns much less often. We use them to avoid ambiguity (giant-killer, child-rapist, Nazi-hunter) and sometimes in combinations that are on their way to one-word status (thrill-seeker).

I always hyphenate "high-school teacher," just as I hyphenate "real-estate agent" and "limited-liability company." Certainly any potential ambiguity created by omitting the hyphen will almost instantly be resolved in the reader's mind from the context; however, the potential ambiguity will remain, likely causing the reader to (1) quickly read the phrase again to ensure the reader correctly understands the writer's intended meaning; and (2) smirk in light of the possible alternate construction of the phrase (e.g., "a high school teacher" as teacher who has been smokin' the reefer).

If Webster's New World -- the AP Stylebook's first reference of choice -- includes a listing for a potential compound modifier as a noun (real estate, high school, etc.), the hyphen isn't necessary when used in constructions such as "high school teacher," "real estate agent," etc.

Another potential solution is to reword a phrase that would include any compound modifier requiring more than two hyphens. After all, who wants to read a hyphenated-beyond-all-bounds-of-reality construction?

BTW: "Schoolteacher" is one word, as per Webster's. If said schoolteacher were high, this schoolteacher would be a "high schoolteacher." No confusion.

The idea of treating the nouns listed in Webster's New World as unhyphenated modifiers is intriguing, but take a quick look at just how many such terms are in the dictionary. We'd be stuck with abnormal psychology professors, absent without leave accusations and adding machine manufacturers, and that's just early in the A's.

Jeebus! Readers aren't THAT stupid, so why should editors pepper perfectly good copy with so-called qualifers? There is no reason -- absolutely none -- to hyphenate "high school teacher" or "real estate tax," et al., when the noun in question is easily identifiable by the average person. Adding hyphens is usually done to edit for the sake of editing. Haven't we gotten over this yet???

I imagine in days gone by, someone could potentially have misread "real estate tax" as a "real (not artificial) estate tax." But since Bush renamed the estate tax the death tax, we're that much safer leaving real estate unhyphenated as a modifier ...

Maybe with the newer soy-based inks, that extra dab for the unnecessary hyphen isn't hurting the environment like it used to, but every hyphen I have to fill in while copy editing hastens the day when I end up with carpal tunnel syndrome...

How about "discrete particle physicist" or "invisible fence salesman"? Again, the intended meaning will surely be derived from the context, but not before the reader does a double take.

We hyphenate to clarify language. Using the standard of only what would be necessary to make a word, phrase, or sentence intelligible to the "average reader" would doubtless sanction the elimination of most punctuation. Isn't it preferable to reduce, rather than increase, confusion?

"Readers aren't THAT stupid, so why should editors pepper perfectly good copy with so-called qualifers?"

We don't hyphenate on the assumption that readers are stupid; we do it because it makes the sentence easier to read and comprehend quickly.

"There is no reason -- absolutely none -- to hyphenate "high school teacher" or "real estate tax," et al., when the noun in question is easily identifiable by the average person."

Here lies the problem: What makes the sentence easier to read and comprehend quickly to us isn't necessarily the same as to the reader. The usage of "high school student" and "real estate tax" and "ice cream sandwich" have become so common without the hyphen that readers who see it with the correct punctuation are taken aback and must re-read to make sure it's not wrong, and sometimes still aren't convinced ("Why is there a hyphen there?") I'm willing to let those few examples slide (except for "real estate tax," though I'll grimace and bear it for "real estate agent") because in common usage, they have become more recongnizable without the hyphen. In effect, those battles have been lost. But I still won't give up on "e-mail."

By all means, hold the line on e-mail. I have no intention of giving that particular hyphen up, either. I also like to hyphenate "infectious disease" as a modifier, to make sure the right element stays infectious.

Do you ever wonder why people use hardest-hit as an adjective? Even when it's grammatically correct, it's pretty senseless to say hardest-hit areas rather than areas hit hardest. I see some irony in the fact that it's one of the few hyphenated compound modifiers that is frequently used correctly.

I think you're on to something, but I wouldn't agree that "hardest-hit areas" is faulty. The problem, I think, is that people take that quite natural word order from the modifier and use it after a noun (a "predicate adjective," is it?) when "hit hardest" is much more natural. The following, to me, is natural, if tautological: The hardest-hit areas are hit hardest.

I mention this in "The Elephants of Style," along with the similar example of rental cars and car-rental companies, which people quite oddly call "rental-car companies."

(And yes, my descriptivist friends, I know full well that none of this even comes close to being a matter of right or wrong.)

Bill, a friend referred me to your site last week, and I immediately became hooked. I even went back several months to see what I've been missing all this time.

I couldn't find a place to contact you, so I figured I'd post here. It seems one of the phrases that bothers you most is "foreseeable future." You seem pretty adament about the stupidity of this phrase, but I think I have a new argument.

The phrase "foreseeable future" is by definition correct. Let's take an extreme example. You once posted, "...show me your diary from Sept. 10, 2001."

Well, let's assume I met with a group of investors or insurers on 9/10/01 and said. "I encourage you to partner with the World Trade Center. We won't be hit by terrorist-guided airplanes in the foreseeable future."

The next day, the buildings are hit by terrorist-guided airplanes. So you say, "See? There's no such thing as the foreseeable future." I say that for 14 hours or so, I was correct. Then, something unforeseen happened, thus ending my prediction of the foreseeable future.

To use a more likely scenario, say a governor announces he has managed to cut the state's budget by 5 percent. "With prudent government practices," he says, "citizens of this state will not endure a tax increase in the foreseeable future."

That may be a risky statement politically. But if one year from the announcement revenues come in well below projections, forcing a tax increase, the governor still technically would have been correct.

Because the second something unexpected happens (yes, lottery numbers are unexpected every week, but that has no bearing on the governor's prediction) the forseeable future becomes unforeseeable.

Aparker54, of course word order doesn't matter -- for emphasis or any other reason -- to many copy editors. Rules are important. And it would be better for everyone if we had a rule to always rewrite such constructions so there's no debate about hyphens.

For example: The schemes laid best by mice and men gang aft a-gley.

Wasn't that easy? Isn't it a big improvement over the original?

And how was your trip? I assume you're back in your old stamping/stomping grounds.

If the duration of the foreseeable future changes depending on events, then "foreseeable future" is meaningless, which was precisely my point. Somebody talking on 9/10/2001 presumably meant more than 24 hours when referring to such a period.

if the duration of the foreseeable future changes depending on events, then "foreseeable future" is meaningless,

I'm certain, Bill, that if you vaporized in a plane crash your halo would still be shuddering hundreds of years hence at the use of the phrase.

The 'foreseeable future' is no more meaningless than "barring unforeseen occurences' or a dozen other phrases that mean extrapolating from current trends. You simply have a blind spot here, and apparently no number of people pointing it out is going to change it.

I think I'm with Stephen here. I happened to see the phrase "foreseeable future" in the NYT over the weekend, which reminded me of this thread. If you take out "foreseeable," the meaning changes, so that won't work. Rewriting it will almost certainly bring about something longer and stupider. As Stephen says, there's a general understanding of what the phrase means. On the editing-problem scale of 1-10, "foreseeable future" is maybe a 2.

I think "foreseeable future" has to be treated as idiom. The future obviously cannot be foreseen, and someone not familiar with the term could not deduce its meaning from the literal definitions of the words.

Objecting to this long-established phrase is one step away from insisting that "rush hour" must be changed to "rush period" because it's more than an hour. And, hard as it is to believe, there are copy editors out there who do change "rush hour" to "rush period." Objecting to "foreseeable future" encourages them in their madness.

Are you insane, Le Petomane? If copy editors don't spend hours (or long periods of time, or whatever) changing readable English into prose with which no imaginable reader could quibble -- except on the grounds that it's not readable -- how will the copy editors justify their existence and high pay? Layout, no doubt.